Congratulations to Lord Cromwell for winning the crossbencher hereditary peers byelection. Lord Cromwell beat Lord Russell of Liverpool by 13 votes to 12 after 4 transfers of votes.
I imagine Sarah Wollaston MP is going to find Westminster a less friendly place in future.
To be fair to her, I think it would have been wrong of her not to pass on a complaint that a serious criminal offence had been committed.
The extraordinary thing is bringing charges where the alleged victim (who is also the witness) states that they do not think an offence was comited and that they don't want charges to be made against Evans.
The CPS is almost asking to be disbanded and the powers placed elsewhere in a body that can use them in a snsible way.
Having read the Guardian article linked below, it struck me as very odd that as each of the 'victims' entered the witness boxed one after another, each said 'I do not see myself as a victim' and would never have pursued filing a complaint - and the only reason they were in court was because of pressure applied by the police - very odd indeed.
I imagine Sarah Wollaston MP is going to find Westminster a less friendly place in future.
To be fair to her, I think it would have been wrong of her not to pass on a complaint that a serious criminal offence had been committed.
The extraordinary thing is bringing charges where the alleged victim (who is also the witness) states that they do not think an offence was comited and that they don't want charges to be made against Evans.
The CPS is almost asking to be disbanded and the powers placed elsewhere in a body that can use them in a snsible way.
I wonder if it would ever have gone to court if the defendant hadn't been a high profile Tory?
That seems to be an unnecessary conflation of Jewish identity and Israel. I don't see why good Christians in Muslim-majority countries need to have an affiliation with, say, the United States.
You may also enjoy the Aubrey and Maturin books by Patrick O'Brien [adapted into a somewhat dodgy film]
I thought the film was much better than the books. It takes all sorts!
Which did you see/read first?
My daughter and I have this ongiong discussion about whether it is best to read the book or watch the film first - I tend to get disappointed by films if I have read the book first, but she tends to get confused a bit by books when she has seen the film first.
Needless to say, I read the Aubrey and Maturin books before seeing the film, and saw the [modern] film of the Count of Monte Cristo before reading the book.
I read some of the books first. I almost didn't watch the film because I had such a low opinion of the books.
Still getting the weird double-article upon login.
Mr. T, caught up with your last post on planning/spontaneity which I missed last night. I agree that the funniest stuff does appear to jump out of nowhere.
It always amazes me why the law persecutes the rich and powerful. They are more often than not found not guilty, or guilty to a lesser charge. Unlike the poor, who tend to be just " guilty", and found to be so with a ten minute hearing.
I imagine Sarah Wollaston MP is going to find Westminster a less friendly place in future.
To be fair to her, I think it would have been wrong of her not to pass on a complaint that a serious criminal offence had been committed.
The extraordinary thing is bringing charges where the alleged victim (who is also the witness) states that they do not think an offence was comited and that they don't want charges to be made against Evans.
The CPS is almost asking to be disbanded and the powers placed elsewhere in a body that can use them in a snsible way.
The man who alleged that he had been raped did say that an offence had been committed.
Had Sarah Wollaston kept quiet about this, and had the Defendant subsequently been found guilty, she would be facing a huge amount of criticism.
I have just taken part in a Populus telephone poll. Could it have been specific to the Broxtowe constituency? I was asked to confirm that I was in that one. I'm not on any regular panels, so I assume it was random.
Nothing unusual about the questions: certainty to vote, which party last time and next time, had any local contact from main parties, preferred outcome for government etc.
What's the worst book to film conversion in modern times?
I'll throw in One Day as, erm, a starter for ten. Great book - utterly dire film that completely misses the point of the book.
Bonfire of the Vanities and The Lovely Bones were generally panned by critics, though I haven't seen either of them.
Dune?
Bonfire of the Vanities was full of turgid prose. Some chapters barely readable. Havent read The Lovely Bones. However, the Harry Potter series was an undoubted success.
I imagine Sarah Wollaston MP is going to find Westminster a less friendly place in future.
To be fair to her, I think it would have been wrong of her not to pass on a complaint that a serious criminal offence had been committed.
The extraordinary thing is bringing charges where the alleged victim (who is also the witness) states that they do not think an offence was comited and that they don't want charges to be made against Evans.
The CPS is almost asking to be disbanded and the powers placed elsewhere in a body that can use them in a snsible way.
The man who alleged that he had been raped did say that an offence had been committed.
Had Sarah Wollaston kept quiet about this, and had the Defendant subsequently been found guilty, she would be facing a huge amount of criticism.
I agree with you there, but others said (and according to the G'dian article in advance of the trial) they considered that no offence was committed. Why those charges were brought to court I have no idea, it was bound to dilute the veracity of the rape charge.
The Shining didn't exactly set the world alight when it was released either. It's reputation has grown over the years with TV and video/DVD views, but when it was first released most critics regarded it to be very disappointing next to the book.
In a lot of way's it's really an example of how worthless critics are because many of the critics that panned it in 1980 now say it's one of the greatest horror movies ever made and all that's changed in the 34 years between it's release and now is that the public have seen it a lot through different media and gradually embraced it.
The Shining didn't exactly set the world alight when it was released either. It's reputation has grown over the years with TV and video/DVD views, but when it was first released most critics regarded it to be very disappointing next to the book.
Ipsos MORI Westminster VI - Scotland Sub-sample = 86 (+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 46% (+4) SNP 31% (+11) Con 14% (-3) UKIP 4% (+3) LD 4% (-15) Grn 1% (n/c) oth 1%
Whilst this is good news for my SNP 6.5/over and Inverness bets, 86 is too low a sample. The rolling average of subsamples would be useful however as a tool.
Ipsos MORI Westminster VI - Scotland Sub-sample = 86 (+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 46% (+4) SNP 31% (+11) Con 14% (-3) UKIP 4% (+3) LD 4% (-15) Grn 1% (n/c) oth 1%
Whilst this is good news for my SNP 6.5/over and Inverness bets, 86 is too low a sample. The rolling average of subsamples would be useful however as a tool.
Agreed. That is why the new Populus/FT aggregate, launched last week, is such a fantastic tool.
The Scottish sub-sample is large enough to take seriously: 1,477 respondents in Scotland in the first tables. The first one was published at the end of last week.
Populus / Financial Times Westminster voting intention - Scotland (+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 34% (-8) SNP 34% (+14) Con 18% (+1) LD 7% (-12) UKIP 3% (+2) Grn 2% (+1)
I imagine Sarah Wollaston MP is going to find Westminster a less friendly place in future.
Unfair to blame her, I think. It's one thing to report a possible very serious crime to the police, quite another for the police and CPS, having investigated, to decide to prosecute.
Who knows why she did it so enthusiastically? I know, I know - it's very hard to imagine Westminster politicians acting out of concealed self interest, or being duplicitous, but sometimes, however rarely, it does happen - or so I am told.
Either way she doesn't come out of this looking especially good.
I have to say for my part I find it impossible to think of a set of events whereby Wollaston has used two sexual assaults to her own advantage.
As for the CPS, while they must consider whether the decision to prosecute was correct after a not guilty verdict, for future cases, at times some people come down so hard you'd think that every not guilty verdict meant that the CPS had acted wrongly. In reality, there will be a non-neglible number of cases where the CPS prosecutes correct but the defendant is cleared.
I can accept a "not guilty" verdict, however, statistically the chance of being found so depends a lot on your social position and wealth. Have a look on yesterdays papers about the guy from America who spent twenty five years in jail for a murder he couldn't have committed, but the evidence absolving him was held by the prosecution, and they denied knowing of it.
The Shining didn't exactly set the world alight when it was released either. It's reputation has grown over the years with TV and video/DVD views, but when it was first released most critics regarded it to be very disappointing next to the book.
In a lot of way's it's really an example of how worthless critics are because many of the critics that panned it in 1980 now say it's one of the greatest horror movies ever made and all that's changed in the 34 years between it's release and now is that the public have seen it a lot through different media and gradually embraced it.
One of the best chapters in the count of monte cristo is 'unlimited credit'. The count is being show. Round his enemies house and in his art gallery the host comments that he prefers the old Classics to modern art... The count says 'yes modern art suffers greatly from the fact that it hasnt had the opportunity to become an old classic yet'
Mobile roaming in Europe going to be introduced and today I get this text from EE
From 28 May we are increasing some of our prices in line with RPI (Retail Price Index), a measure linked to inflation. The price of your monthly plan will increase by 2.7%. We are also making changes to charges when you go over or use services outside of your allowance, visit www.ee.co.uk/t-mobile-newrates for more information. You'll see the change on your bill from 28 May 2014. To calculate your new monthly plan cost visit www.ee.co.uk/t-mobile-pricechanges
"...people voting for Yes once they become more familiar with the pros and cons [of inedpendence]"
Are there any cons? Mr. G. has spent months on here telling us that every possible downside was a scare story dreamt up by nasty men (who are also cowards and fools).
Hurst, I have yet to hear any unionist put forward a positive for the union , not one. They just jeer, insult Alex Salmond , haggis , etc etc. I do not believe I will see one before the vote.
Mr. G., I struggle to think of a positive reason for keeping the Union. However, that doesn't mean there won't be some downsides in dissolving it. A person who points out a drawback is not necessarily a fool or antipathectical to the idea of Scottish Independence. As I have said before, if I were a Scot I'd voting Yes, but I still think some of the stuff in the White Paper is laughable and that far too little thought has been given to some very big issues.
I imagine Sarah Wollaston MP is going to find Westminster a less friendly place in future.
Unfair to blame her, I think. It's one thing to report a possible very serious crime to the police, quite another for the police and CPS, having investigated, to decide to prosecute.
Of all the people to come out of this badly (and few are entirely blameless) it would seem strange to pick on her as the central villain.
I'm hardly calling her the central villain! I said she might not have so many friends at Westminster and she hasn't come out of this looking especially good.
And she hasn't. She was a crucial part of a clearly wrongful prosecution against a fellow Tory MP. She was either duped by this young man, or....
Let's leave it there. Perhaps I am being unduly cynical about politicians. Shame on me!
I think I'll back up the other posters and say that Woolaston and Bercow behaved in the correct manner. Once you have been told something like this, it cannot be untold. Imagine if Woolaston and/or Bercow had not prompted them to go to the police, and the story had broken six months later. It would appear that the MPs were trying to cover up a serious alleged crime by one of their own.
It wouldn't matter how much Woolaston said: "I didn't believe him!"; she would be damned by the good men and women of the press. Once they were told, they had to tell the accusers to go to the police, even if they did not necessarily believe the stories.
I feel very sorry for Evans, and also for (some of) the men who were dragged through court for no reason. The CPS should explain themselves.
Odd, many on here berated the BBC and it's staff for not reporting sexual abuse, and now we have people claiming that MP.s should just have kept their mouths shut.
Odd, many on here berated the BBC and it's staff for not reporting sexual abuse, and now we have people claiming that MP.s should just have kept their mouths shut.
Look as if the majority are questioning the actions of the CPS.
Ipsos MORI Westminster VI - Scotland Sub-sample = 86 (+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 46% (+4) SNP 31% (+11) Con 14% (-3) UKIP 4% (+3) LD 4% (-15) Grn 1% (n/c) oth 1%
Whilst this is good news for my SNP 6.5/over and Inverness bets, 86 is too low a sample. The rolling average of subsamples would be useful however as a tool.
Agreed. That is why the new Populus/FT aggregate, launched last week, is such a fantastic tool.
The Scottish sub-sample is large enough to take seriously: 1,477 respondents in Scotland in the first tables. The first one was published at the end of last week.
Populus / Financial Times Westminster voting intention - Scotland (+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 34% (-8) SNP 34% (+14) Con 18% (+1) LD 7% (-12) UKIP 3% (+2) Grn 2% (+1)
I imagine Sarah Wollaston MP is going to find Westminster a less friendly place in future.
Unfair to blame her, I think. It's one thing to report a possible very serious crime to the police, quite another for the police and CPS, having investigated, to decide to prosecute.
Who knows why she did it so enthusiastically? I know, I know - it's very hard to imagine Westminster politicians acting out of concealed self interest, or being duplicitous, but sometimes, however rarely, it does happen - or so I am told.
Either way she doesn't come out of this looking especially good.
I have to say for my part I find it impossible to think of a set of events whereby Wollaston has used two sexual assaults to her own advantage.
As for the CPS, while they must consider whether the decision to prosecute was correct after a not guilty verdict, for future cases, at times some people come down so hard you'd think that every not guilty verdict meant that the CPS had acted wrongly. In reality, there will be a non-neglible number of cases where the CPS prosecutes correct but the defendant is cleared.
You don't think politicians ever bear grudges, or have enemies, or take cold revenge, or advance themselves at the expense of others?
I am NOT saying this is what Sarah Wollaston did - in case there are any libel lawyers reading - but House of Cards is popular amongst politicians and journos for a reason, it reflects reality, however hyperbolised.
The Nigel Evans show trial would fit very easily into a thriller about political vengeance. Or maybe it just me and all politicians act for the best at all times.
Your own experience may be colouring your judgement.
Wollaston was right - the alternative would be seen as a cover-up.
What does seem odd is all the other "victims" who seem to have been dragged in unwillingly. Who was behind that?
Interestingly nuanced findings in detailed leader question in this poll: * Most capable PM is Cameron 34, Miliband 20, Farage 9, Clegg 5 but "best understands problems facing Britain" is 23-25-17-9 while "best in a crisis" is 43-16-9-5 and "most out of touch with ordinary people" is 40-15-15-14.
So Cameron is seen as relatively capable and good at crises, but also perplexed by problems facing Britain and wildly out of touch. Which matters most for voting intention is something to debate.
The Scottish sub-sample is large enough to take seriously: 1,477 respondents in Scotland in the first tables.
Probably not, actually. The thing about sub-samples is not just their size but that no attempt is made to fit them to the demographic in the area - e.g. they could in theory be all elderly men, or all former LibDems - so long as the overall poll is balanced. This, more than the subsample size, is what makes subsamples oscillate wildly.
Ipsos MORI Westminster VI - Scotland Sub-sample = 86 (+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 46% (+4) SNP 31% (+11) Con 14% (-3) UKIP 4% (+3) LD 4% (-15) Grn 1% (n/c) oth 1%
Whilst this is good news for my SNP 6.5/over and Inverness bets, 86 is too low a sample. The rolling average of subsamples would be useful however as a tool.
Agreed. That is why the new Populus/FT aggregate, launched last week, is such a fantastic tool.
The Scottish sub-sample is large enough to take seriously: 1,477 respondents in Scotland in the first tables. The first one was published at the end of last week.
Populus / Financial Times Westminster voting intention - Scotland (+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 34% (-8) SNP 34% (+14) Con 18% (+1) LD 7% (-12) UKIP 3% (+2) Grn 2% (+1)
I have just taken part in a Populus telephone poll. Could it have been specific to the Broxtowe constituency? I was asked to confirm that I was in that one. I'm not on any regular panels, so I assume it was random.
Nothing unusual about the questions: certainty to vote, which party last time and next time, had any local contact from main parties, preferred outcome for government etc.
This could be another super marginals poll that Lord Ashcroft is carrying out. I believe that populus do his polling for him.
I imagine Sarah Wollaston MP is going to find Westminster a less friendly place in future.
Unfair to blame her, I think. It's one thing to report a possible very serious crime to the police, quite another for the police and CPS, having investigated, to decide to prosecute.
Who knows why she did it so enthusiastically? I know, I know - it's very hard to imagine Westminster politicians acting out of concealed self interest, or being duplicitous, but sometimes, however rarely, it does happen - or so I am told.
Either way she doesn't come out of this looking especially good.
I have to say for my part I find it impossible to think of a set of events whereby Wollaston has used two sexual assaults to her own advantage.
As for the CPS, while they must consider whether the decision to prosecute was correct after a not guilty verdict, for future cases, at times some people come down so hard you'd think that every not guilty verdict meant that the CPS had acted wrongly. In reality, there will be a non-neglible number of cases where the CPS prosecutes correct but the defendant is cleared.
You don't think politicians ever bear grudges, or have enemies, or take cold revenge, or advance themselves at the expense of others?
I am NOT saying this is what Sarah Wollaston did - in case there are any libel lawyers reading - but House of Cards is popular amongst politicians and journos for a reason, it reflects reality, however hyperbolised.
The Nigel Evans show trial would fit very easily into a thriller about political vengeance. Or maybe it just me and all politicians act for the best at all times.
[snip]
What does seem odd is all the other "victims" who seem to have been dragged in unwillingly. Who was behind that?
Nigel Evans: should 'weak case' have been brought?
Such was Lancashire Constabulary's zeal to pursue the case that when Tory MP Conor Burns told police he only had a vague recollection of one of the incidents and did not feel in a position to provide a statement, he was warned if he did not comply he would be forced to attend court and treated as a “reluctant witness”.
Mr Burns, who is the MP for Bournemouth West said: “They said if I would not give a statement I would be required to appear before a judge, come to court and be a reluctant witness. I felt very uncomfortable about that.
So Cameron is seen as relatively capable and good at crises, but also perplexed by problems facing Britain and wildly out of touch. Which matters most for voting intention is something to debate.
Depends whether voters want a Prime Minister or a shoulder to cry on.
I imagine Sarah Wollaston MP is going to find Westminster a less friendly place in future.
Unfair to blame her, I think. It's one thing to report a possible very serious crime to the police, quite another for the police and CPS, having investigated, to decide to prosecute.
Who knows why she did it so enthusiastically? I know, I know - it's very hard to imagine Westminster politicians acting out of concealed self interest, or being duplicitous, but sometimes, however rarely, it does happen - or so I am told.
Either way she doesn't come out of this looking especially good.
I have to say for my part I find it impossible to think of a set of events whereby Wollaston has used two sexual assaults to her own advantage.
As for the CPS, while they must consider whether the decision to prosecute was correct after a not guilty verdict, for future cases, at times some people come down so hard you'd think that every not guilty verdict meant that the CPS had acted wrongly. In reality, there will be a non-neglible number of cases where the CPS prosecutes correct but the defendant is cleared.
You don't think politicians ever bear grudges, or have enemies, or take cold revenge, or advance themselves at the expense of others?
I am NOT saying this is what Sarah Wollaston did - in case there are any libel lawyers reading - but House of Cards is popular amongst politicians and journos for a reason, it reflects reality, however hyperbolised.
The Nigel Evans show trial would fit very easily into a thriller about political vengeance. Or maybe it just me and all politicians act for the best at all times.
Your own experience may be colouring your judgement.
Wollaston was right - the alternative would be seen as a cover-up.
What does seem odd is all the other "victims" who seem to have been dragged in unwillingly. Who was behind that?
Indeed. Adding extra alleged victims that do not see themselves as victims would probably weaken the case. They should have just concentrated on those first two men.
Interestingly nuanced findings in detailed leader question in this poll: * Most capable PM is Cameron 34, Miliband 20, Farage 9, Clegg 5 but "best understands problems facing Britain" is 23-25-17-9 while "best in a crisis" is 43-16-9-5 and "most out of touch with ordinary people" is 40-15-15-14.
So Cameron is seen as relatively capable and good at crises, but also perplexed by problems facing Britain and wildly out of touch. Which matters most for voting intention is something to debate.
So a 14-point lead is 'relatively', whilst a 25-point deficit is 'wildly'? I think you need to stop concentrating on Cameron and look at why your party's leader is both less capable and (using your sort of language) hideously terrible at crises.
Whilst we are at it, in the previous thread I asked you a question based on your post:
"If Labour were worn out in 2010, what do you tell them to convince them that Labour is somehow revitalised, fresh and new?"
Actually, you're probably right. I just watched Nigel Evans come out of that courtroom and all kinds of emotions swelled in me - as I remembered the moment when I was in pretty much the same position. It's rare that I remember what happened to me, but when I do it can be painful.
For that reason I don't trust myself entirely on this subject, as it is so personal - which is why I now refuse editorial requests to write about it in newspapers. Maybe I should avoid it on blogs, as well.
As you were.
While I think you were wrong today, please don't stop posting about your views on this issue when it comes up. It's such a sensitive topic that many people refuse to put forward the less politically correct side, so it's very eye-opening to the rest of us to hear a rarely voiced opinion.
So Cameron is seen as relatively capable and good at crises, but also perplexed by problems facing Britain and wildly out of touch. Which matters most for voting intention is something to debate.
Depends whether voters want a Prime Minister or a shoulder to cry on.
So Cameron is seen as relatively capable and good at crises, but also perplexed by problems facing Britain and wildly out of touch. Which matters most for voting intention is something to debate.
Depends whether voters want a Prime Minister or a shoulder to cry on.
Depends if they want someone who looks confident while they drive the wrong way up the motorway or someone who looks like a geek but bothered to ask where the passengers want to go.
I have just taken part in a Populus telephone poll. Could it have been specific to the Broxtowe constituency? I was asked to confirm that I was in that one. I'm not on any regular panels, so I assume it was random.
Nothing unusual about the questions: certainty to vote, which party last time and next time, had any local contact from main parties, preferred outcome for government etc.
This could be another super marginals poll that Lord Ashcroft is carrying out. I believe that populus do his polling for him.
Seems likely! Did the questions quote candidate names?
Interestingly nuanced findings in detailed leader question in this poll: * Most capable PM is Cameron 34, Miliband 20, Farage 9, Clegg 5 but "best understands problems facing Britain" is 23-25-17-9 while "best in a crisis" is 43-16-9-5 and "most out of touch with ordinary people" is 40-15-15-14.
So Cameron is seen as relatively capable and good at crises, but also perplexed by problems facing Britain and wildly out of touch. Which matters most for voting intention is something to debate.
So a 14-point lead is 'relatively', whilst a 25-point deficit is 'wildly'? I think you need to stop concentrating on Cameron and look at why your party's leader is both less capable and (using your sort of language) hideously terrible at crises.
Whilst we are at it, in the previous thread I asked you a question based on your post:
"If Labour were worn out in 2010, what do you tell them to convince them that Labour is somehow revitalised, fresh and new?"
Why shouldn't I concentrate on anything I like? (innocent face) But I've quoted all the results, good and bad, whereas you only seem to care about the ones that suit your leaning?
In reply to your question from the last thread (not seen at the time, sorry), I don't think there's any doubt that Labour is very different to the state it was in 2010 - leadership team, political emphasis, and general interest in what happens next rather than in who said what in the past. We would no doubt disagree on whether it's better, but I did feel we were tired in 2010, and I don't feel it now.
Mr. Palmer, things aren't that different in leadership terms. Your deputy leader is the same, and the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor are both Sons of Brown.
For the public there is/was some novelty to Ed Miliband, as he didn't have a huge profile pre-leadership.
So Cameron is seen as relatively capable and good at crises, but also perplexed by problems facing Britain and wildly out of touch. Which matters most for voting intention is something to debate.
Depends whether voters want a Prime Minister or a shoulder to cry on.
Depends if they want someone who looks confident while they drive the wrong way up the motorway or someone who looks like a geek but bothered to ask where the passengers want to go.
I rather fear that Miliband would ask the passengers where they want to go, then get lost whilst taking them somewhere totally different. Whilst Balls would suck through his teeth and say: "Cambridge, at this time of night? That'll be £6 billion guvnor."
Ipsos MORI Westminster VI - Scotland Sub-sample = 86 (+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 46% (+4) SNP 31% (+11) Con 14% (-3) UKIP 4% (+3) LD 4% (-15) Grn 1% (n/c) oth 1%
Whilst this is good news for my SNP 6.5/over and Inverness bets, 86 is too low a sample. The rolling average of subsamples would be useful however as a tool.
The Scottish sub-sample is large enough to take seriously: 1,477 respondents in Scotland in the first tables. The first one was published at the end of last week.
Methodological question.
Do we know if that's 1477 different respondents, or ~350 respondents who have been asked the same question four times?
Mr. Palmer, things aren't that different in leadership terms. Your deputy leader is the same, and the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor are both Sons of Brown.
For the public there is/was some novelty to Ed Miliband, as he didn't have a huge profile pre-leadership.
Ed has never had the full benefit of the 'freshness' of a new leader, as he is a Milliband, and one of those was high profile for 13 years, the other a lower profile. His 'freshness' was diluted by association to the previous Labour administration and his family name. He wasn't universally seen as new broom.
I imagine Sarah Wollaston's going to find Westminster a less friendly place in future
Unfair to blame her, I think. It's one thing to report a possible very serious crime to the police, quite another for the police and CPS having investigated, to decide to prosecute.
Who knows why she did it so enthusiastically? I know, I know - it's very hard to imagine Westminster politicians acting out of concealed self interest, or being duplicitous, but sometimes, however rarely, it does happen - or so I am told.
Either way she doesn't come out of this looking especially good.
I have to say for my part I find it impossible to think of a set of events whereby Wollaston has used two sexual assaults to her own advantage.
As for the CPS, while they must consider whether the decision to prosecute was correct after a not guilty verdict, for future cases, at times some people come down so hard you'd think that every not guilty verdict meant that the CPS had acted wrongly. In reality, there will be a non-neglible number of cases where the CPS prosecutes correct but the defendant is cleared.
You don't think politicians ever bear grudges, or have enemies, or take cold revenge, or advance themselves at the expense of others?
I am NOT saying this is what Sarah Wollaston did - in case there are any libel lawyers reading - but House of Cards is popular amongst politicians and journos for a reason, it reflects reality, however hyperbolised.
The Nigel Evans show trial would fit very easily into a thriller about political vengeance. Or maybe it just me and all politicians act for the best at all times.
[snip]
What does seem odd is all the other "victims" who seem to have been dragged in unwillingly. Who was behind that?
Nigel Evans: should 'weak case' have been brought?
Such was Lancashire Constabulary's zeal to pursue the case that when Tory MP Conor Burns told police he only had a vague recollection of one of the incidents and did not feel in a position to provide a statement, he was warned if he did not comply he would be forced to attend court and treated as a “reluctant witness”.
Mr Burns, who is the MP for Bournemouth West said: “They said if I would not give a statement I would be required to appear before a judge, come to court and be a reluctant witness. I felt very uncomfortable about that.
I imagine Sarah Wollaston MP is going to find Westminster a less friendly place in future.
Unfair to blame her, I think. It's one thing to report a possible very serious crime to the police, quite another for the police and CPS, having investigated, to decide to prosecute.
Who knows why she did it so enthusiastically? I know, I know - it's very hard to imagine Westminster politicians acting out of concealed self interest, or being duplicitous, but sometimes, however rarely, it does happen - or so I am told.
Either way she doesn't come out of this looking especially good.
I have to say for my part I find it impossible to think of a set of events whereby Wollaston has used two sexual assaults to her own advantage.
As for the CPS, while they must consider whether the decision to prosecute was correct after a not guilty verdict, for future cases, at times some people come down so hard you'd think that every not guilty verdict meant that the CPS had acted wrongly. In reality, there will be a non-neglible number of cases where the CPS prosecutes correct but the defendant is cleared.
You don't think politicians ever bear grudges, or have enemies, or take cold revenge, or advance themselves at the expense of others?
I am NOT saying this is what Sarah Wollaston did - in case there are any libel lawyers reading - but House of Cards is popular amongst politicians and journos for a reason, it reflects reality, however hyperbolised.
The Nigel Evans show trial would fit very easily into a thriller about political vengeance. Or maybe it just me and all politicians act for the best at all times.
Your own experience may be colouring your judgement.
Wollaston was right - the alternative would be seen as a cover-up.
What does seem odd is all the other "victims" who seem to have been dragged in unwillingly. Who was behind that?
Indeed. Adding extra alleged victims that do not see themselves as victims would probably weaken the case. They should have just concentrated on those first two men.
I don't know, Socrates. I don't know about the individual case, but in sexual offences in particular there has been an immense effort put it to ensure that people who have been the victim of crime come forward even when they don't think they've been the victim of a crime. Ultimately the effect is to make them realise that they have been a victim, but it is still about overcoming false instinct - about "deserving it", being drunk, leading the perpetrator on, about sexual offences in a domestic context, etc. A complicated issue.
I imagine Sarah Wollaston's going to find Westminster a less friendly place in future
.
Either way she doesn't come out of this looking especially good.
I have to say for my part I find it impossible to think of a set of events whereby Wollaston has used two sexual assaults to her own advantage.
As for the CPS, while they must consider whether the decision to prosecute was correct after a not guilty verdict, for future cases, at times some people come down so hard you'd think that every not guilty verdict meant that the CPS had acted wrongly. In reality, there will be a non-neglible number of cases where the CPS prosecutes correct but the defendant is cleared.
You don't think politicians ever bear grudges, or have enemies, or take cold revenge, or advance themselves at the expense of others?
I am NOT saying this is what Sarah Wollaston did - in case there are any libel lawyers reading - but House of Cards is popular amongst politicians and journos for a reason, it reflects reality, however hyperbolised.
The Nigel Evans show trial would fit very easily into a thriller about political vengeance. Or maybe it just me and all politicians act for the best at all times.
[snip]
What does seem odd is all the other "victims" who seem to have been dragged in unwillingly. Who was behind that?
Nigel Evans: should 'weak case' have been brought?
Such was Lancashire Constabulary's zeal to pursue the case that when Tory MP Conor Burns told police he only had a vague recollection of one of the incidents and did not feel in a position to provide a statement, he was warned if he did not comply he would be forced to attend court and treated as a “reluctant witness”.
Mr Burns, who is the MP for Bournemouth West said: “They said if I would not give a statement I would be required to appear before a judge, come to court and be a reluctant witness. I felt very uncomfortable about that.
To take the flipside, politicians going to "I can't remember" as a way of closing ranks and protecting each other is a far from implausible scenario.
And I guess as some of the alleged victims were trying to climb the same greasy pole (is that phrase OK in this context?) they may have concluded there was no benefit in upsetting the hierarchy.
You don't think politicians ever bear grudges, or have enemies, or take cold revenge, or advance themselves at the expense of others? ... Or maybe it just me and all politicians act for the best at all times.
Sarah Wollaston is not your normal MP though - isn't she the GP who was selected by the postal primary vote in Devon?
The Guardian say this:
Wollaston, a GP with 20 years' experience including a spell working as a police forensic examiner where she dealt with victims of sexual and domestic violence ... took the matter into her own hands and passed a police telephone number to both men, telling them they had a duty to come forward and ensure Evans was apprehended before any other young men were assaulted.
I doubt they could have found an MP in the Commons who was more likely to be sympathetic to them - and it still sounds like she did not go to the police directly herself, but simply encouraged the self-declared victims to do so.
Ipsos MORI Westminster VI - Scotland Sub-sample = 86 (+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 46% (+4) SNP 31% (+11) Con 14% (-3) UKIP 4% (+3) LD 4% (-15) Grn 1% (n/c) oth 1%
Whilst this is good news for my SNP 6.5/over and Inverness bets, 86 is too low a sample. The rolling average of subsamples would be useful however as a tool.
The Scottish sub-sample is large enough to take seriously: 1,477 respondents in Scotland in the first tables. The first one was published at the end of last week.
Methodological question.
Do we know if that's 1477 different respondents, or ~350 respondents who have been asked the same question four times?
Not to mention, are they properly sampled respondents. It's not just about numbers.
Why shouldn't I concentrate on anything I like? (innocent face) But I've quoted all the results, good and bad, whereas you only seem to care about the ones that suit your leaning?
No, I was pointing out your use of terminology is rather odd. When Cameron is 27 points ahead he is merely 'good at crises'; when he is 25 points behind he is 'wildly out of touch'.
In reply to your question from the last thread (not seen at the time, sorry), I don't think there's any doubt that Labour is very different to the state it was in 2010 - leadership team, political emphasis, and general interest in what happens next rather than in who said what in the past. We would no doubt disagree on whether it's better, but I did feel we were tired in 2010, and I don't feel it now.
The leadership team's different? Really? Balls, Miliband, Harman et al. Just look at the current shadow cabinet list. It's just a handover from Brown's time, with some ministers even in the same roles, except now shadow. There's not a great deal of new blood, with the honourable exceptions of the likes of Creagh and Hunt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Cabinet_of_Ed_Miliband#2013_reshuffle
'general interest in what happens next': care to elucidate?
'political emphasis': again, please elucidate.
So summing up, it appears that you're not really offering much on the doorstep except, I guess, that you're not a Tory?
Ipsos MORI Westminster VI - Scotland Sub-sample = 86 (+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 46% (+4) SNP 31% (+11) Con 14% (-3) UKIP 4% (+3) LD 4% (-15) Grn 1% (n/c) oth 1%
Whilst this is good news for my SNP 6.5/over and Inverness bets, 86 is too low a sample. The rolling average of subsamples would be useful however as a tool.
The Scottish sub-sample is large enough to take seriously: 1,477 respondents in Scotland in the first tables. The first one was published at the end of last week.
Methodological question.
Do we know if that's 1477 different respondents, or ~350 respondents who have been asked the same question four times?
I don't think there's any way to rule out the latter.
More importantly, the real margin of error is not just numerical or based on sample size alone. There are problems in ensuring the randomness of the polling, such as the one you identify, and others, and their are behavioral problems in the response (imagine if you asked every single teenage boy whether he was a virgin, for example). History tells us that behavioral problems are not limited to such exaggerated forms.
I imagine Sarah Wollaston's going to find Westminster a less friendly place in future
.
Either way she doesn't come out of this looking especially good.
I have to say for my part I find it impossible to think of a set of events whereby Wollaston has used two sexual assaults to her own advantage. In reality, there will be a non-neglible number of cases where the CPS prosecutes correct but the defendant is cleared.
You don't think politicians ever bear grudges, or have enemies, or take cold revenge, or advance themselves at the expense of others?
I am NOT saying this is what Sarah Wollaston did - in case there are any libel lawyers reading - but House of Cards is popular amongst politicians and journos for a reason, it reflects reality, however hyperbolised.
The Nigel Evans show trial would fit very easily into a thriller about political vengeance. Or maybe it just me and all politicians act for the best at all times.
[snip]
What does seem odd is all the other "victims" who seem to have been dragged in unwillingly. Who was behind that?
Nigel Evans: should 'weak case' have been brought?
Such was Lancashire Constabulary's zeal to pursue the case that when Tory MP Conor Burns told police he only had a vague recollection of one of the incidents and did not feel in a position to provide a statement, he was warned if he did not comply he would be forced to attend court and treated as a “reluctant witness”.
Mr Burns, who is the MP for Bournemouth West said: “They said if I would not give a statement I would be required to appear before a judge, come to court and be a reluctant witness. I felt very uncomfortable about that.
To take the flipside, politicians going to "I can't remember" as a way of closing ranks and protecting each other is a far from implausible scenario.
And I guess as some of the alleged victims were trying to climb the same greasy pole (is that phrase OK in this context?) they may have concluded there was no benefit in upsetting the hierarchy.
My honest suspicion is that politics by its nature probably has a lot of low level borderline sexual assault/harrassment/etc going on (alongside your general consensual shagging a la Major-Currie etc) that goes unreported.
But what's this "pb eunuchs" stuff? You really are dyspeptic. Which tells me you are worried you are losing.
You're daily roller coaster of views on the referendum certainly tells me very little.
A PB Eunuch: someone who despite not having a vote in the referendum or influence on the result and with very little knowledge of Scotland, its politics or people, insists on commenting endlessly on the subject (often while claiming utter disinterest). I anoint you Cappo di Castrati.
Given that after independence you're still pathetically hoping to use English currency, keep an English queen, house England's Trident, tag along with English universities, join the Bank of England, adopt English interest rates, use English fiscal rules, mirror English taxes, use the English language, and keep an open border with England despite having a different immigration policy, I'd say that as an Englishman I have a fairly significant interest in what an "independent Scotland" intends to do seeing as it will be little more than a parasitical appendage of England, only with its own Eurovision contestant.
That quote should be thrown back in the face of every PB Scottish Nat, as they sneeringly attempt to exclude other PBers from debate.
Do tell me how a poster 'excludes' another poster from debate? I'd imagine moderators who ban posters and links to their sites are the only ones who can do that.
Given that after independence you're still pathetically hoping to use English currency, keep an English queen, house England's Trident, tag along with English universities, join the Bank of England, adopt English interest rates, use English fiscal rules, mirror English taxes, use the English language, and keep an open border with England despite having a different immigration policy, I'd say that as an Englishman I have a fairly significant interest in what an "independent Scotland" intends to do seeing as it will be little more than a parasitical appendage of England.
I have seen plenty of insecurity in my time, but that post takes the biscuit. Someone seems worried about England to write such tripe.
But what's this "pb eunuchs" stuff? You really are dyspeptic. Which tells me you are worried you are losing.
You're daily roller coaster of views on the referendum certainly tells me very little.
A PB Eunuch: someone who despite not having a vote in the referendum or influence on the result and with very little knowledge of Scotland, its politics or people, insists on commenting endlessly on the subject (often while claiming utter disinterest). I anoint you Cappo di Castrati.
Given that after independence you're still pathetically hoping to use English currency, keep an English queen, house England's Trident, tag along with English universities, join the Bank of England, adopt English interest rates, use English fiscal rules, mirror English taxes, use the English language, and keep an open border with England despite having a different immigration policy, I'd say that as an Englishman I have a fairly significant interest in what an "independent Scotland" intends to do seeing as it will be little more than a parasitical appendage of England, only with its own Eurovision contestant.
That quote should be thrown back in the face of every PB Scottish Nat, as they sneeringly attempt to exclude other PBers from debate.
Do tell me how a poster 'excludes' another poster from debate? I'd imagine moderators who ban posters and links to their sites are the only ones who can do that.
Given that after independence you're still pathetically hoping to use English currency, keep an English queen, house England's Trident, tag along with English universities, join the Bank of England, adopt English interest rates, use English fiscal rules, mirror English taxes, use the English language, and keep an open border with England despite having a different immigration policy, I'd say that as an Englishman I have a fairly significant interest in what an "independent Scotland" intends to do seeing as it will be little more than a parasitical appendage of England.
I have seen plenty of insecurity in my time, but that post takes the biscuit. Someone seems worried about England to write such tripe.
If that makes you feel a little more cheerful MrG, so be it ; )
Mr. G, many of those are fair points from Mr. StClare (I'd discount sharing a language, mirroring taxation, the universities or the monarchy).
The currency question is entirely legitimate, and if Scotland takes a different approach to migration then the border becomes a live question (if you join the EU and take the Irish approach then it will probably be a non-issue).
Ipsos MORI Westminster VI - Scotland Sub-sample = 86 (+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 46% (+4) SNP 31% (+11) Con 14% (-3) UKIP 4% (+3) LD 4% (-15) Grn 1% (n/c) oth 1%
Whilst this is good news for my SNP 6.5/over and Inverness bets, 86 is too low a sample. The rolling average of subsamples would be useful however as a tool.
The Scottish sub-sample is large enough to take seriously: 1,477 respondents in Scotland in the first tables. The first one was published at the end of last week.
Methodological question.
Do we know if that's 1477 different respondents, or ~350 respondents who have been asked the same question four times?
I don't think there's any way to rule out the latter.
More importantly, the real margin of error is not just numerical or based on sample size alone. There are problems in ensuring the randomness of the polling, such as the one you identify, and others, and their are behavioral problems in the response (imagine if you asked every single teenage boy whether he was a virgin, for example). History tells us that behavioral problems are not limited to such exaggerated forms.
And yet, despite all of that, the aggregate of 1,477 respondents is still more valuable than the sub-sample of 86 respondents.
I don't recall the Scottish subsamples being a particularly accurate steer for the 2010 GE, though.
But what's this "pb eunuchs" stuff? You really are dyspeptic. Which tells me you are worried you are losing.
You're daily roller coaster of views on the referendum certainly tells me very little.
A PB Eunuch: someone who despite not having a vote in the referendum or influence on the result and with very little knowledge of Scotland, its politics or people, insists on commenting endlessly on the subject (often while claiming utter disinterest). I anoint you Cappo di Castrati.
Given that after independence you're still pathetically hoping to use English currency, keep an English queen, house England's Trident, tag along with English universities, join the Bank of England, adopt English interest rates, use English fiscal rules, mirror English taxes, use the English language, and keep an open border with England despite having a different immigration policy, I'd say that as an Englishman I have a fairly significant interest in what an "independent Scotland" intends to do seeing as it will be little more than a parasitical appendage of England, only with its own Eurovision contestant.
That quote should be thrown back in the face of every PB Scottish Nat, as they sneeringly attempt to exclude other PBers from debate.
Do tell me how a poster 'excludes' another poster from debate? I'd imagine moderators who ban posters and links to their sites are the only ones who can do that.
Given that after independence you're still pathetically hoping to use English currency, keep an English queen, house England's Trident, tag along with English universities, join the Bank of England, adopt English interest rates, use English fiscal rules, mirror English taxes, use the English language, and keep an open border with England despite having a different immigration policy, I'd say that as an Englishman I have a fairly significant interest in what an "independent Scotland" intends to do seeing as it will be little more than a parasitical appendage of England.
Simon, I am a staunch unionist Welshman. But do you not see that your use of English in this context annoys the hell out of the non-English and fuels support for independence.
If you want to support the union at least make it seem like you see it as a group/partnership etc (even if a lopsided one) rather than it being "England".
Whatever happens with Scotland there will not be an English currency, and English trident, English interest rates, etc. There will be UK ones.
I know nothing about golf, but just been speaking to my golf daft son about the Masters. He reckons Poulter is definitely a good each way bet to finish in the top five, but he wonders if he will manage to put in four good rounds. He himself has only put on a couple of wee each way outside bets before the tournament.
But what's this "pb eunuchs" stuff? You really are dyspeptic. Which tells me you are worried you are losing.
You're daily roller coaster of views on the referendum certainly tells me very little.
A PB Eunuch: someone who despite not having a vote in the referendum or influence on the result and with very little knowledge of Scotland, its politics or people, insists on commenting endlessly on the subject (often while claiming utter disinterest). I anoint you Cappo di Castrati.
Given that after independence you're still pathetically hoping to use English currency, keep an English queen, house England's Trident, tag along with English universities, join the Bank of England, adopt English interest rates, use English fiscal rules, mirror English taxes, use the English language, and keep an open border with England despite having a different immigration policy, I'd say that as an Englishman I have a fairly significant interest in what an "independent Scotland" intends to do seeing as it will be little more than a parasitical appendage of England, only with its own Eurovision contestant.
That quote should be thrown back in the face of every PB Scottish Nat, as they sneeringly attempt to exclude other PBers from debate.
Do tell me how a poster 'excludes' another poster from debate? I'd imagine moderators who ban posters and links to their sites are the only ones who can do that.
Given that after independence you're still pathetically hoping to use English currency, keep an English queen, house England's Trident, tag along with English universities, join the Bank of England, adopt English interest rates, use English fiscal rules, mirror English taxes, use the English language, and keep an open border with England despite having a different immigration policy, I'd say that as an Englishman I have a fairly significant interest in what an "independent Scotland" intends to do seeing as it will be little more than a parasitical appendage of England.
I have seen plenty of insecurity in my time, but that post takes the biscuit. Someone seems worried about England to write such tripe.
Its SeanT's insecurity. Some people are so insecure they can't even put it into their own words.
Ipsos MORI Westminster VI - Scotland Sub-sample = 86 (+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 46% (+4) SNP 31% (+11) Con 14% (-3) UKIP 4% (+3) LD 4% (-15) Grn 1% (n/c) oth 1%
Whilst this is good news for my SNP 6.5/over and Inverness bets, 86 is too low a sample. The rolling average of subsamples would be useful however as a tool.
The Scottish sub-sample is large enough to take seriously: 1,477 respondents in Scotland in the first tables. The first one was published at the end of last week.
Methodological question.
Do we know if that's 1477 different respondents, or ~350 respondents who have been asked the same question four times?
I don't think there's any way to rule out the latter.
More importantly, the real margin of error is not just numerical or based on sample size alone. There are problems in ensuring the randomness of the polling, such as the one you identify, and others, and their are behavioral problems in the response (imagine if you asked every single teenage boy whether he was a virgin, for example). History tells us that behavioral problems are not limited to such exaggerated forms.
It will not be as low as 350 but there will probably be a very few who have responded to all or most polls and because these will probably belong to the groups the pollsters find hardest to get responses from ie male 18-24 Sun readers then their votes will be weighted up more than other responders .
I'll try to only mention it once more, shortly before release (the date is not yet confirmed. Late May's probably the latest, but it could well be a few weeks before then).
There is a worrying trend whereby sexual advances seem to be interpreted as sexual assault.
Bob, It is not difficult to determine if someone grabs you by the chookies that it is sexual assault and will normally result in a serious assault in return.
Mr. G, many of those are fair points from Mr. StClare (I'd discount sharing a language, mirroring taxation, the universities or the monarchy).
The currency question is entirely legitimate, and if Scotland takes a different approach to migration then the border becomes a live question (if you join the EU and take the Irish approach then it will probably be a non-issue).
Morris , It does become very boring listening to people on here who believe they are clever , not talking yourself or Mr StClare, when they have no clue what they are talking about. Nobody really cares about what Osborne or Cameron thinks , the pound is part Scottish and we will continue to use it in the short term , either in some agreed union with both parties having rules to follow or if rumpUK is petty and vindictive we will use it on our own. Given that they cannot control immigration at the moment it also will be no different , people will just come in the easy way as they currently do, via Heathrow or southern ports. Most sensible people realise that the simple options will be used once it is a reality and life will go on little changed, apart from us running our own country and being represented around the world by ourselves. Idiots on here trying to make out everything is English is pretty pathetic, however not unexpected given the drivel some of them post.
"will normally result in a serious assault in return."
That's what I couldn't understand about the case. Evans is not exactly a 23 stone wrestler; in fact, I think he'd struggle to assault many of the women around here. I didn't notice that his face had been rearranged lately so how come the "victims" ran off to the police and didn't use what in a different world, used to be called the "Portsmouth defence".
I'll try to only mention it once more, shortly before release (the date is not yet confirmed. Late May's probably the latest, but it could well be a few weeks before then).
Er, I wrote that, not Simon. He is quoting me. And it was polemic: I used England and English deliberately, all the way through, to wind up the Gnats, like uniondivvie and malcolmG.
And I succeeded. Heh.
Tho I accept I did not exactly set myself the biggest challenge.
So insecure you have to stamp your authorship on a watery internet jibe. Heh.
I know nothing about golf, but just been speaking to my golf daft son about the Masters. He reckons Poulter is definitely a good each way bet to finish in the top five, but he wonders if he will manage to put in four good rounds. He himself has only put on a couple of wee each way outside bets before the tournament.
Betting on golf seems to me to be like betting on the Grand National.. a total crap shoot most of the time..
"...people voting for Yes once they become more familiar with the pros and cons [of inedpendence]"
Are there any cons? Mr. G. has spent months on here telling us that every possible downside was a scare story dreamt up by nasty men (who are also cowards and fools).
Hurst, I have yet to hear any unionist put forward a positive for the union , not one. They just jeer, insult Alex Salmond , haggis , etc etc. I do not believe I will see one before the vote.
Mr. G., I struggle to think of a positive reason for keeping the Union. However, that doesn't mean there won't be some downsides in dissolving it. A person who points out a drawback is not necessarily a fool or antipathectical to the idea of Scottish Independence. As I have said before, if I were a Scot I'd voting Yes, but I still think some of the stuff in the White Paper is laughable and that far too little thought has been given to some very big issues.
Hurst , The issue is their has to be some reality to the downsides. The government has published lots and lots of papers , not one has had anything positive. Just this week we had , need to borrow £143B immediately , electricity up £200, everybody £2000 worse off, etc etc. They could have surely found one thing that would be ok after independence. For sure it will be no picnic , but it is bad already and Westminster have promised a lot worse to come so no difference on that score.
Mr. G, I've got to dispute that (the pound being part Scottish). It's a monetary system. If separation occurs the liabilities and assets will have to be divvied up as fairly as they can be (some of that will be easy, like the land border, and some will be rather testy) but the currency cannot be considered something that (post-Yes Scotland) has a natural right to as part of a currency union.
That would imply Scotland could, by its own will, force England, Wales and Northern Ireland to act as lenders of last resort to Scottish financial institutions, which is clearly an unreasonable position. There's also the issue of interest rates. If you assert Scotland has a right to currency union with the rest of the UK (after voting to leave it) then presumably what follows is a presumption Scotland has a minimum of some sway over and a maximum of the power to dictate interest rates. It just doesn't stack up.
I hope this is an academic disagreement rather than one that gets played out for real.
What's the problem they're trying to solve? On the week they should be getting some credit for the mobile phone roaming changes, this comes out...
Unless the EU is also intending to bring in EU-wide registration of motor vehicles then it doesn't make any difference to cross-border trade of motor vehicles.
The rules already are that if you have a car with a foreign registration - eg from Ireland (the only other country in the EU which drives on our side of the road anyway) - in another country for more than three months - eg in the UK - then you have to transfer the registration (and therefore get another plate). Whether the rear plate is yellow or not makes no difference. This is why you will occasionally see an Opel brand car with English plates, or a Vauxhall brand car with Irish plates (the Vauxhall brand is not used outside of the UK, the brand Opel is used instead).
Forcing UK residents to shell out a combined £300 million or more for absolutely zero benefit would be insane.
If they want to encourage cross-border trade between the UK and Ireland in second hand cars they need to take the Irish government to court for their ridiculous vehicle registration tax.
But surely independence would be a disaster for Scotland and release an encumbered rUK to soar to pre-eminence once again:
'Scottish independence: Yes vote could mean UK credit rating review, says Fitch
...In a previous assessment in 2012 the agency had concluded that Scottish independence would be likely to be neutral for the UK's credit rating, but said it had revised its view as it could no longer assume there would be "no impact on gross public debt".
The new report cautioned that Fitch would expect that a compromise could be reached between Scotland and the rest of the UK in any transitional negotiations.
"It would be in the best economic interests of the UK to ensure that an independent Scotland was, in the broadest terms, 'a success'", it said.'
So S&P say an indy Scotland would qualify for their 'highest economic assessment' and Fitch say it's in rUK's interests for iScotland to be a success. I just can't cope with all this scaremongering.
What's the problem they're trying to solve? On the week they should be getting some credit for the mobile phone roaming changes, this comes out...
Unless the EU is also intending to bring in EU-wide registration of motor vehicles then it doesn't make any difference to cross-border trade of motor vehicles.
The rules already are that if you have a car with a foreign registration - eg from Ireland (the only other country in the EU which drives on our side of the road anyway) - in another country for more than three months - eg in the UK - then you have to transfer the registration (and therefore get another plate). Whether the rear plate is yellow or not makes no difference. This is why you will occasionally see an Opel brand car with English plates, or a Vauxhall brand car with Irish plates (the Vauxhall brand is not used outside of the UK, the brand Opel is used instead).
Forcing UK residents to shell out a combined £300 million or more for absolutely zero benefit would be insane.
If they want to encourage cross-border trade between the UK and Ireland in second hand cars they need to take the Irish government to court for their ridiculous vehicle registration tax.
Isn't the biggest barrier to trading cars the fact we drive on the other side of the road?
But surely independence would be a disaster for Scotland and release an encumbered rUK to soar to pre-eminence once again:
'Scottish independence: Yes vote could mean UK credit rating review, says Fitch
...In a previous assessment in 2012 the agency had concluded that Scottish independence would be likely to be neutral for the UK's credit rating, but said it had revised its view as it could no longer assume there would be "no impact on gross public debt".
The new report cautioned that Fitch would expect that a compromise could be reached between Scotland and the rest of the UK in any transitional negotiations.
"It would be in the best economic interests of the UK to ensure that an independent Scotland was, in the broadest terms, 'a success'", it said.'
So S&P say an indy Scotland would qualify for their 'highest economic assessment' and Fitch say it's in rUK's interests for iScotland to be a success. I just can't cope with all this scaremongering.
And if anyone's sound on economic predictions, it's the ratings agencies.
But what's this "pb eunuchs" stuff? You really are dyspeptic. Which tells me you are worried you are losing.
You're daily roller coaster of views on the referendum certainly tells me very little.
A PB Eunuch: someone who despite not having a vote in the referendum or influence on the result and with very little knowledge of Scotland, its politics or people, insists on commenting endlessly on the subject (often while claiming utter disinterest). I anoint you Cappo di Castrati.
ant interest in what an "independent Scotland" intends to do seeing as it will be little more than a parasitical appendage of England, only with its own Eurovision contestant.
That quote should be thrown back in the face of every PB Scottish Nat, as they sneeringly attempt to exclude other PBers from debate.
Do tell me how a poster 'excludes' another poster from debate? I'd imagine moderators who ban posters and links to their sites are the only ones who can do that.
Given .
Simon, I am a staunch unionist Welshman. But do you not see that your use of English in this context annoys the hell out of the non-English and fuels support for independence.
If you want to support the union at least make it seem like you see it as a group/partnership etc (even if a lopsided one) rather than it being "England".
Whatever happens with Scotland there will not be an English currency, and English trident, English interest rates, etc. There will be UK ones.
Er, I wrote that, not Simon. He is quoting me. And it was polemic: I used England and English deliberately, all the way through, to wind up the Gnats, like uniondivvie and malcolmG.
And I succeeded. Heh.
Tho I accept I did not exactly set myself the biggest challenge.
Mr. G, I've got to dispute that (the pound being part Scottish). It's a monetary system. If separation occurs the liabilities and assets will have to be divvied up as fairly as they can be (some of that will be easy, like the land border, and some will be rather testy) but the currency cannot be considered something that (post-Yes Scotland) has a natural right to as part of a currency union.
One hopes that whatever is agreed there will be sensible transitional arrangements, etc. The arguments from the NO side that Scotland could not continue to use the pound under any circumstances and that this alone torpedoes the case for independence is clearly absurd, as is that pathetic argument that the currency is a shared asset.
As seant pointed out once there would be nothing that Scotland could to to stop the rest of the UK introducing a a new pound of their own after Scottish independence, and leaving Scotland to carry on using the old existing pound.
Indeed, I reckon we should do this when QEII passes away, since inflation has eroded the value of the pound to a ridiculous degree, so introducing a new King Charles pound with £1 KCIII = £10 QEII.
Totally off topic, but I'm currently speeding on the Edinburgh to London line, and once again marvelling at the Scottish coastline. This really must be one of the best train journeys anywhere.
But what's this "pb eunuchs" stuff? You really are dyspeptic. Which tells me you are worried you are losing.
You're daily roller coaster of views on the referendum certainly tells me very little.
A PB Eunuch: someone who despite not having a vote in the referendum or influence on the result and with very little knowledge of Scotland, its politics or people, insists on commenting endlessly on the subject (often while claiming utter disinterest). I anoint you Cappo di Castrati.
ant interest in what an "independent Scotland" intends to do seeing as it will be little more than a parasitical appendage of England, only with its own Eurovision contestant.
That quote should be thrown back in the face of every PB Scottish Nat, as they sneeringly attempt to exclude other PBers from debate.
Do tell me how a poster 'excludes' another poster from debate? I'd imagine moderators who ban posters and links to their sites are the only ones who can do that.
Given .
Simon, I am a staunch unionist Welshman. But do you not see that your use of English in this context annoys the hell out of the non-English and fuels support for independence.
If you want to support the union at least make it seem like you see it as a group/partnership etc (even if a lopsided one) rather than it being "England".
Whatever happens with Scotland there will not be an English currency, and English trident, English interest rates, etc. There will be UK ones.
Er, I wrote that, not Simon. He is quoting me. And it was polemic: I used England and English deliberately, all the way through, to wind up the Gnats, like uniondivvie and malcolmG.
And I succeeded. Heh.
Tho I accept I did not exactly set myself the biggest challenge.
Meanwhile we continue to guffaw at your outpourings of insecurity.
What's the problem they're trying to solve? On the week they should be getting some credit for the mobile phone roaming changes, this comes out...
Unless the EU is also intending to bring in EU-wide registration of motor vehicles then it doesn't make any difference to cross-border trade of motor vehicles.
The rules already are that if you have a car with a foreign registration - eg from Ireland (the only other country in the EU which drives on our side of the road anyway) - in another country for more than three months - eg in the UK - then you have to transfer the registration (and therefore get another plate). Whether the rear plate is yellow or not makes no difference. This is why you will occasionally see an Opel brand car with English plates, or a Vauxhall brand car with Irish plates (the Vauxhall brand is not used outside of the UK, the brand Opel is used instead).
Forcing UK residents to shell out a combined £300 million or more for absolutely zero benefit would be insane.
If they want to encourage cross-border trade between the UK and Ireland in second hand cars they need to take the Irish government to court for their ridiculous vehicle registration tax.
Isn't the biggest barrier to trading cars the fact we drive on the other side of the road?
Not with Ireland, who drive on the same side as us.
Judging by the conversation I just had with son No1, I agree! I knew that he would have had a wee flutter on this tournament. But after telling me who he thought the hot favourites were, he then told me he had only had a wee bet each way on three rank outsiders.
I know nothing about golf, but just been speaking to my golf daft son about the Masters. He reckons Poulter is definitely a good each way bet to finish in the top five, but he wonders if he will manage to put in four good rounds. He himself has only put on a couple of wee each way outside bets before the tournament.
Betting on golf seems to me to be like betting on the Grand National.. a total crap shoot most of the time..
My son thinks that Poulter can be relied upon to put in three good rounds, but not yet that fourth round, hence why he consistently makes the top 10. Anyhoos, all I know is that its going to be wall to wall golf on the TV this weekend when the hubby and kids are about! But good luck to those who have all had a flutter on the Masters.
But what's this "pb eunuchs" stuff? You really are dyspeptic. Which tells me you are worried you are losing.
You're daily roller coaster of views on the referendum certainly tells me very little.
ant interest in what an "independent Scotland" intends to do seeing as it will be little more than a parasitical appendage of England, only with its own Eurovision contestant.
That quote should be thrown back in the face of every PB Scottish Nat, as they sneeringly attempt to exclude other PBers from debate.
Do tell me how a poster 'excludes' another poster from debate? I'd imagine moderators who ban posters and links to their sites are the only ones who can do that.
Given .
Er, I wrote that, not Simon. He is quoting me. And it was polemic: I used England and English deliberately, all the way through, to wind up the Gnats, like uniondivvie and malcolmG.
And I succeeded. Heh.
Tho I accept I did not exactly set myself the biggest challenge.
Meanwhile we continue to guffaw at your outpourings of insecurity.
Mr. G, I've got to dispute that (the pound being part Scottish). It's a monetary system. If separation occurs the liabilities and assets will have to be divvied up as fairly as they can be (some of that will be easy, like the land border, and some will be rather testy) but the currency cannot be considered something that (post-Yes Scotland) has a natural right to as part of a currency union.
That would imply Scotland could, by its own will, force England, Wales and Northern Ireland to act as lenders of last resort to Scottish financial institutions, which is clearly an unreasonable position. There's also the issue of interest rates. If you assert Scotland has a right to currency union with the rest of the UK (after voting to leave it) then presumably what follows is a presumption Scotland has a minimum of some sway over and a maximum of the power to dictate interest rates. It just doesn't stack up.
I hope this is an academic disagreement rather than one that gets played out for real.
Morris, you do not read my posts, I said in an agreement or without one , we will use the pound as we always have, in the short term at least. If in a currency union both sides will have rules to follow as part of the agreed deal.
Mr. G, as is usually the case I don't read each and every post on here, so I must've missed that (don't think it was in the post I replied to directly).
You're right that Scotland could use the pound outside of a currency union, although that would seem rather odd (to me).
Totally off topic, but I'm currently speeding on the Edinburgh to London line, and once again marvelling at the Scottish coastline. This really must be one of the best train journeys anywhere.
You should try walking it: the stretch between Berwick across the border to Eyemouth and St Abbs is one of the best on that coast.
Comments
Http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2014/Lords-notice-crossbench-hereditary-peers-by-election-result-apr-14.pdf
Edit reply to Socrates, not TheWatcher. Sorry
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/10/how-case-against-nigel-evans-fell-apart?CMP=twt_gu
Big Hornblower fan though!
Still getting the weird double-article upon login.
Mr. T, caught up with your last post on planning/spontaneity which I missed last night. I agree that the funniest stuff does appear to jump out of nowhere.
Unlike the poor, who tend to be just " guilty", and found to be so with a ten minute hearing.
There is a worrying trend whereby sexual advances seem to be interpreted as sexual assault.
Had Sarah Wollaston kept quiet about this, and had the Defendant subsequently been found guilty, she would be facing a huge amount of criticism.
I Robot?
The Handmaid's Tale?
Another one who cannot accept a not guilty verdict.
Nothing unusual about the questions: certainty to vote, which party last time and next time, had any local contact from main parties, preferred outcome for government etc.
Havent read The Lovely Bones.
However, the Harry Potter series was an undoubted success.
Ipsos MORI
Westminster VI - Scotland
Sub-sample = 86
(+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 46% (+4)
SNP 31% (+11)
Con 14% (-3)
UKIP 4% (+3)
LD 4% (-15)
Grn 1% (n/c)
oth 1%
In a lot of way's it's really an example of how worthless critics are because many of the critics that panned it in 1980 now say it's one of the greatest horror movies ever made and all that's changed in the 34 years between it's release and now is that the public have seen it a lot through different media and gradually embraced it.
I am Legend?
Both films taking a good sci-fi premise and turning them into a mindless action-fest (and both curiously starring Will Smith)
@Nigel_Farage will be on BBCTV's "Have I Got News For You" tomorrow.
He'll be walking into a lefty nest then.
The Scottish sub-sample is large enough to take seriously: 1,477 respondents in Scotland in the first tables. The first one was published at the end of last week.
Populus / Financial Times
Westminster voting intention - Scotland
(+/- change from UK GE 2010)
Lab 34% (-8)
SNP 34% (+14)
Con 18% (+1)
LD 7% (-12)
UKIP 3% (+2)
Grn 2% (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/140401-Populus_FT-March-2014.pdf
As for the CPS, while they must consider whether the decision to prosecute was correct after a not guilty verdict, for future cases, at times some people come down so hard you'd think that every not guilty verdict meant that the CPS had acted wrongly. In reality, there will be a non-neglible number of cases where the CPS prosecutes correct but the defendant is cleared.
I can accept a "not guilty" verdict, however, statistically the chance of being found so depends a lot on your social position and wealth.
Have a look on yesterdays papers about the guy from America who spent twenty five years in jail for a murder he couldn't have committed, but the evidence absolving him was held by the prosecution, and they denied knowing of it.
I'll get my coat.
From 28 May we are increasing some of our prices in line with RPI (Retail Price Index), a measure linked to inflation. The price of your monthly plan will increase by 2.7%. We are also making changes to charges when you go over or use services outside of your allowance, visit www.ee.co.uk/t-mobile-newrates for more information. You'll see the change on your bill from 28 May 2014. To calculate your new monthly plan cost visit www.ee.co.uk/t-mobile-pricechanges
It wouldn't matter how much Woolaston said: "I didn't believe him!"; she would be damned by the good men and women of the press. Once they were told, they had to tell the accusers to go to the police, even if they did not necessarily believe the stories.
I feel very sorry for Evans, and also for (some of) the men who were dragged through court for no reason. The CPS should explain themselves.
I said people, I never specified a number.
Wollaston was right - the alternative would be seen as a cover-up.
What does seem odd is all the other "victims" who seem to have been dragged in unwillingly. Who was behind that?
* Most capable PM is Cameron 34, Miliband 20, Farage 9, Clegg 5
but "best understands problems facing Britain" is
23-25-17-9
while "best in a crisis" is 43-16-9-5 and
"most out of touch with ordinary people" is
40-15-15-14.
So Cameron is seen as relatively capable and good at crises, but also perplexed by problems facing Britain and wildly out of touch. Which matters most for voting intention is something to debate. Probably not, actually. The thing about sub-samples is not just their size but that no attempt is made to fit them to the demographic in the area - e.g. they could in theory be all elderly men, or all former LibDems - so long as the overall poll is balanced. This, more than the subsample size, is what makes subsamples oscillate wildly.
Such was Lancashire Constabulary's zeal to pursue the case that when Tory MP Conor Burns told police he only had a vague recollection of one of the incidents and did not feel in a position to provide a statement, he was warned if he did not comply he would be forced to attend court and treated as a “reluctant witness”.
Mr Burns, who is the MP for Bournemouth West said: “They said if I would not give a statement I would be required to appear before a judge, come to court and be a reluctant witness. I felt very uncomfortable about that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10755913/Nigel-Evans-should-weak-case-have-been-brought.html
Whilst we are at it, in the previous thread I asked you a question based on your post:
"If Labour were worn out in 2010, what do you tell them to convince them that Labour is somehow revitalised, fresh and new?"
In reply to your question from the last thread (not seen at the time, sorry), I don't think there's any doubt that Labour is very different to the state it was in 2010 - leadership team, political emphasis, and general interest in what happens next rather than in who said what in the past. We would no doubt disagree on whether it's better, but I did feel we were tired in 2010, and I don't feel it now.
For the public there is/was some novelty to Ed Miliband, as he didn't have a huge profile pre-leadership.
I rather fear that Miliband would ask the passengers where they want to go, then get lost whilst taking them somewhere totally different. Whilst Balls would suck through his teeth and say: "Cambridge, at this time of night? That'll be £6 billion guvnor."
Do we know if that's 1477 different respondents, or ~350 respondents who have been asked the same question four times?
The Guardian say this:I doubt they could have found an MP in the Commons who was more likely to be sympathetic to them - and it still sounds like she did not go to the police directly herself, but simply encouraged the self-declared victims to do so.
No mention of candidates names.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Cabinet_of_Ed_Miliband#2013_reshuffle
'general interest in what happens next': care to elucidate?
'political emphasis': again, please elucidate.
So summing up, it appears that you're not really offering much on the doorstep except, I guess, that you're not a Tory?
More importantly, the real margin of error is not just numerical or based on sample size alone. There are problems in ensuring the randomness of the polling, such as the one you identify, and others, and their are behavioral problems in the response (imagine if you asked every single teenage boy whether he was a virgin, for example). History tells us that behavioral problems are not limited to such exaggerated forms.
The currency question is entirely legitimate, and if Scotland takes a different approach to migration then the border becomes a live question (if you join the EU and take the Irish approach then it will probably be a non-issue).
I don't recall the Scottish subsamples being a particularly accurate steer for the 2010 GE, though.
If you want to support the union at least make it seem like you see it as a group/partnership etc (even if a lopsided one) rather than it being "England".
Whatever happens with Scotland there will not be an English currency, and English trident, English interest rates, etc. There will be UK ones.
Some people are so insecure they can't even put it into their own words.
http://shop.ticketyboopress.co.uk/index.php?id_product=1&controller=product
I'll try to only mention it once more, shortly before release (the date is not yet confirmed. Late May's probably the latest, but it could well be a few weeks before then).
This sort of thing annoys me:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/04/would-you-care-if-british-number-plates-took-on-the-eu-design/
What's the problem they're trying to solve? On the week they should be getting some credit for the mobile phone roaming changes, this comes out...
Most sensible people realise that the simple options will be used once it is a reality and life will go on little changed, apart from us running our own country and being represented around the world by ourselves.
Idiots on here trying to make out everything is English is pretty pathetic, however not unexpected given the drivel some of them post.
"will normally result in a serious assault in return."
That's what I couldn't understand about the case. Evans is not exactly a 23 stone wrestler; in fact, I think he'd struggle to assault many of the women around here. I didn't notice that his face had been rearranged lately so how come the "victims" ran off to the police and didn't use what in a different world, used to be called the "Portsmouth defence".
I admit I'm not familiar with gay practices.
LOL. I think the right/left drive issue might be a bigger problem.
They could have surely found one thing that would be ok after independence.
For sure it will be no picnic , but it is bad already and Westminster have promised a lot worse to come so no difference on that score.
Not a good start for our man sadly - two over thru 10.
@Slack
Agreed.
Mr. G, I've got to dispute that (the pound being part Scottish). It's a monetary system. If separation occurs the liabilities and assets will have to be divvied up as fairly as they can be (some of that will be easy, like the land border, and some will be rather testy) but the currency cannot be considered something that (post-Yes Scotland) has a natural right to as part of a currency union.
That would imply Scotland could, by its own will, force England, Wales and Northern Ireland to act as lenders of last resort to Scottish financial institutions, which is clearly an unreasonable position. There's also the issue of interest rates. If you assert Scotland has a right to currency union with the rest of the UK (after voting to leave it) then presumably what follows is a presumption Scotland has a minimum of some sway over and a maximum of the power to dictate interest rates. It just doesn't stack up.
I hope this is an academic disagreement rather than one that gets played out for real.
The rules already are that if you have a car with a foreign registration - eg from Ireland (the only other country in the EU which drives on our side of the road anyway) - in another country for more than three months - eg in the UK - then you have to transfer the registration (and therefore get another plate). Whether the rear plate is yellow or not makes no difference. This is why you will occasionally see an Opel brand car with English plates, or a Vauxhall brand car with Irish plates (the Vauxhall brand is not used outside of the UK, the brand Opel is used instead).
Forcing UK residents to shell out a combined £300 million or more for absolutely zero benefit would be insane.
If they want to encourage cross-border trade between the UK and Ireland in second hand cars they need to take the Irish government to court for their ridiculous vehicle registration tax.
'Scottish independence: Yes vote could mean UK credit rating review, says Fitch
...In a previous assessment in 2012 the agency had concluded that Scottish independence would be likely to be neutral for the UK's credit rating, but said it had revised its view as it could no longer assume there would be "no impact on gross public debt".
The new report cautioned that Fitch would expect that a compromise could be reached between Scotland and the rest of the UK in any transitional negotiations.
"It would be in the best economic interests of the UK to ensure that an independent Scotland was, in the broadest terms, 'a success'", it said.'
http://tinyurl.com/own8x5x
So S&P say an indy Scotland would qualify for their 'highest economic assessment' and Fitch say it's in rUK's interests for iScotland to be a success. I just can't cope with all this scaremongering.
As seant pointed out once there would be nothing that Scotland could to to stop the rest of the UK introducing a a new pound of their own after Scottish independence, and leaving Scotland to carry on using the old existing pound.
Indeed, I reckon we should do this when QEII passes away, since inflation has eroded the value of the pound to a ridiculous degree, so introducing a new King Charles pound with £1 KCIII = £10 QEII.
You're right that Scotland could use the pound outside of a currency union, although that would seem rather odd (to me).